Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama Authorizes Airstrikes In Iraq To Stop Genocide [View all]Igel
(35,522 posts)One of them is the 2003 Iraq War. Without destabilizing Iraq--and then making sure that a strongman wasn't in power to suppress any rebellions that might spring up later--this kind of thing was plausibly going to happen.
Note, however, that what happened with Jugoslavija was likely in the stars for Iraq, as well. Tito held things together. The strongman that came along after him was a bit more moderate and couldn't hold it together. Hence the tensions from Ottoman days, exacerbated by the Nazis/nationalists and Communists, exploded.
Had a strongman or more stable country been left, one in which everybody had a stake, in 2011, that would have also led to this being either contained or not as bad a problem. Nobody bothered to even seriously try to do that, however. It was geopolitically necessary to make an attempt, but much more politically expedient to fail in the attempt. And claim that the failed attempt was a victory, a campaign promise kept. Until things fell apart and the partial amnesia that underlay the claimed victory was remembered.
This current round, however, had its start in the chaos in Syria, which started entirely *after* 2009. It was made very difficult for Assad to end the chaos. And with the declaration that the US would arm and train one side, the international prohibitions against arming any of the rebels vanished. The only reason *not* to provide arms and money to the "bad" rebels was that they were "bad." "Bad," of course, is a word that different people apply differently. The rebellion spread, and then in a bit of spineless wonderment the massive outpouring of aid to be given to moderate rebels (by which was meant "moderately extremist" in many cases, and "moderately dysfunctional" at best) faltered. All that was left was sanction to help anybody. And the Islamic extremists got help.
Iraq war, mistake.
Leaving Iraq meta-stable, and confusing that for "stable," mistake. But one of omission, not commission.
Preventing stability in Syria and not encouraging replacement "stability," mistakes. One was an act of commission, the other of omission.
I don't know that helping the Yezidi do anything more than be given a means to exit the area--permitting ethnic cleansing in order to avoid genocide--is a good idea. Don't know that it's a bad idea. But like the others, they all were immediately judged by their party's supporters as "good" or "bad". I suppose we'll know in 10 years.